ah you should have weighed in Mark
I think you could have argued they were in breach of the 'do not make unnecessary noise' instruction for the Quiet Coach
a couple of saturdays ago i and my girlfriend (who happens to be baptised into the greek orthodox religion, but practises greek catholic...no, she's not greek) were on the virgin train from glasgow to london.. we had reserved seats on the quiet zone of the train, because y'know, a 5 hour train journey shouldn't be sullied by mobile phones ringing and noisy conversations.. somewhere around the lake district a very tall woman sits at the table across the carriage from us, a table already occupied by a very chatty, bearded man in his late 50s, along with his wife.
this man was directing people where to stow their luggage and asking random travellers questions about their journey to the point where i sent my girlfriend a text message (easier to communicate that way without others overhearing us) asking if he was the "train boss".. he struck up a conversation with this new passenger about his travels, but i wasn't really paying attention as i was watching a movie on my ipad, wearing noise cancelling headphones.
after a little while i noticed they'd stopped chatting and the woman was now reading.
so ofs was at the wt this morning, and on par.
14 the question was, "what trust can a faithful christian whose relative is disfellowshipped have?".
after awhile when no one else raised their hands ofs did, and was called on.. ofs commented, "one of jw can have the trust that god will lovingly give them the ability to uphold the disfellowshipping arrangement by totally shunning family members.".
this is from the last talk of the convention ......... clip 1:30 minutes longhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrej8tlyiso&feature=youtu.be.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.
here is the ruling:.
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.
what the Watchtower says:
"Child abuse is abhorrent.”
what the Watchtower does:
19. The period of delay in making the application to the Tribunal is one of over six months. I consider that this to be a significant and serious period of delay, especially in the context of the nature of the Respondent’s concerns in this case. I give weight to the fact that the Respondent’s inquiry and Production Order relate to safeguarding matters which could, as I have noted above, logically concern on-going risks to people who are still children.
They have planned a litigation strategy which a judge states involves ongoing risk to children.
is it an outside source?.
an inside job?
maybe the younger gb "helpers"?.
we are hearing reports of this promotion of the website by the jw and it seems to be a resource for them to dodge questions of their faith, when they don't have or want to give an answer to a question they direct the house holder to the organization/corporation's website to get the answer as if it really existed.there.. i think soon they are going to drop the door to door work all together as completely unprofitable, i mean their donation arrangement is a complete flop and has cost them i'm sure so they are in the process of shipping as many as they can into building up real estate for the corporation, because that is where the money is right now.. the whole jw.org is just a complete failure as a source of good information and only scare away people except the most vulnerable/gullible.. .
.
"it is perfectly apparent that god is monstrous, utterly monstrous, and deserves no respect whatsoever.
the moment you banish him, your life become purer, simpler, cleaner; more worth living in my opinion.".
....
im not an attorney and i could not record the hearing, so please forgive me if i make mistakes in relating what i remember of the oral argument hearing for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society on january 14, 2015 and the length of this post.. i arrived at the civic center/union plaza in san francisco, ca about 7:30. the area is very nice with a few homeless people sleeping in the park across from the courthouse.
it took me about 10 minutes to find the clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks office opened, the two clerks who i talked with were very polite and helpful.
the arguments for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society were scheduled 5th out of (i think) 8. while i was in the office a cameraman and another person for nbc arrived asking about the hearing for candace contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.
please don't laugh - i just threw this together and didn't bother making a script first so probably repeat myself or make no sense at all at times.. hopefully it will demonstrate a few tips for using the site more effectively.. i'll do one on signing up and logging in next and also how to edit, reply etc.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5d3ct0y50.